Martin Reiter and Caroline Bauer-Reiter are in the Court of Appeal. The case concerns a £17.3 million fortune and a 2019 German pact.
The 2019 German agreement that left Bauer-Reiter with no capital
The 2019 German financial agreement originally provided Caroline Bauer-Reiter with no lump sum capital. As the report states , the terms limited her to approximately £1,800 in monthly maintenance until August 2024,alongside rent coverage in Berlin through 2028.
This arrangement reflects a growwing tension in international high-net-worth divorces, where the enforceability of foreign contracts clashes with the discretionary power of English family law. While the original deed was intended to settle the matter,Ms. Bauer-Reiter’s legal team argues it left her in a state of "extreme poverty" compared to the couple's previous affluent lifestyle.
Allegations of 'horse-sedating' doses of Xanax
Ms. Bauer-Reiter claims she was incapable of protecting her own interests when she signed the 2019 deed . Her legal representatives allege she was suffering from severe psychiatric illness and was heavily medicated with Xanax at the time.
The source reports that her lawyers described the quantity of medication prescribed as being sufficient "to sedate a horse." This central claim of incapacity is what Ms.. Bauer-Reiter is using to argue that the original agreement should be set aside entirely.
Synchronized dance routines versus claims of psychiatric illness
Martin Reiter is fighting to uphold the original German agreement, arguing that the recent Family Court ruling was an unfair departure from the agreed terms. His counsel, barrister Michael Horton KC, has challenged the notion that Ms. Bauer-Reiter is unable to work due to her health.
To support this, the defense presented social media evidence, including videos of Ms. Bauer-Reiter performing synchronized dance routines. Mr. Reiter’s team argues these clips demonstrate she is living a "perfectly normal life," directly contradicting her claims of debilitating psychiatric illness.
The debate over a 'self-created' move to London
A significant point of contention involves whether Ms. Bauer-Reiter’s relocation to London should result in a higher settlement. Mr. reiter’s counsel has characterized this as a "self-created increase in needs," comparing it to someone moving from a low-cost area to Mayfair and then demanding more money.
The Court of Appeal must now decide if the relocation was a necessary step for the children's schooling and Ms. Bauer-Reiter's mental well-being, or an attempt to inflate the settlement. Two major questions remain: will the court double the lump sum to £5 million as requested, or will it reinstate the original agreement that provided no capital at all?
Comments 0